In an astonishing display of hypocrisy even by U.N. standards, numerous country delegates gave impassioned speeches last week objecting to the adoption of resolutions criticizing the murderous regimes of Iran, North Korea and Syria, saying they rejected the practice of singling out specific countries; and then proceeded, only moments later, to vote for a resolution — which most of them also co-sponsored — singling out democratic Israel.

There will be a total of 22 one-sided resolutions targeting the Jewish state in this session of the U.N. General Assembly, and only 4 on the rest of the world combined.

Here were the objections of high principle against any naming and shaming of specific countries:

Syria had a “principled position” to reject “intervening in the internal affairs of any other State under the pretext of human rights.”

China “regretted” the resolution on North Korea,” as it “has always opposed imposing pressure through country-specific texts” and “interference in States’ internal affairs.”

Cuba opposed “all country-specific resolutions aimed at countries of the global South.” This, it said, was precisely the “politicization” that led to the disappearance of the Commission on Human Rights.

Russia was “against one-sided and biased resolutions” which “did not promote resolution of human rights issues.”

Venezuela opposed “individual and selective condemnation of single States.” Sponsors of the resolution on Iran “violated human rights themselves,” showing “selectivity” and “double standards.” Rather, “dialogue, mutual respect and cooperation” should be the essential instrument for promotion and protection of human rights.

Nicaragua joined with Cuba in objecting to the resolutions on Iran, Syria and North Korea, as it rejected once again “the practice of selectivity on human rights.”

Belarus said the draft resolution on Iran failed to “promote dialogue on support for human rights.” The draft resolution was “not objective,” and “ignored official sources of information” and “specific actions.”

Bolivia firmly supported the principles of “non-interference” and “sovereignty,” and therefore would vote against the resolution on Iran.

Moments later, however, all of these principled objections to “country-specific” measures, “politicization,” and “selectivity” went out the door. The countries quoted above joined others in voting for a resolution that singled out and slammed Israel for alleged actions that “severely impede the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.” Suddenly, Belarus and Venezuela went silent, failing to demand any alternative U.N. “dialogue” with Israel.

Needless to say, there will be no resolutions in this session supporting Jewish self-determination, or that of the Kurds, Tibetans, Basques or Baluchis.

Not adopting country specific resolutions is not the right way to
do things. A person who is blunt with his/her views would call it a
really stupid idea, even in principle.

By doing so, countries such as the Syrian government,the Iranian
Government, etc, find a way to wash their hands of their guilt – their guilt of crimes against humanity.

This current vote results points to the fact that the world would be
a better place if vehicles run on alternative energy sources, such
as electricity, etc and not on petrol/diesel. The current vote result
at the UN is an Gulf Oil Vote and has been cast by compromising
justice to Israel.

Yet too many individuals who clamor for human rights cannot fathom that the double standard practiced against the single Jewish state, holding it to perfection and ignoring the historic persecution against Jews, is antisemitic.

According to the Working Definition of Antisemitism formulated by the EU, manifestations of antisemitism, a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews, can target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.